Dear god there are countless WRITERS in the church THAT QUESTIONED AND REFORMED THE CHURCH.

This is why 95% of atheists are stupid as **** . They are ******* ignorant to the only religions their bash, which tends to be Christianity/Islam. Guess what you ********* , OTHER RELIGIONS EXIST. You're not atheists, you are **** stains on Mother Earths panties, you are more worthless than a cumstain on a hookers upper lip, and frankly I hope you get ass cancer for all of this faggotry you spread.

Tldr; anyone who believes this makes atheists look bad and should promptly join a foxhole somewhere.

People may have reformed the Church, but that says nothing about the inerrancy of their faith. Their faith is still nonsense. Nor does it change the fact that the Church has been instrumental, and continues to be instrumental, in retarding society by suppressing. Lest we forget the imprisonment of Galileo and the threats of torture made against him?

Still, I have to hand it to the Catholics, at least they acknowledge evolution as conflicting with scripture. I'd say Protestantism and Calvinism are the worst offenders of reason and inquiry, at present.

If you are christian, then there are nearly 2700 recorded gods that you dont believe in just cause athiests dont believe what you do doesnt mean you can call them stupid or ignorant.
Athiests dont go out of there way to bash homosexuals or pro-choice people if anyone is being ignorant here it is you saying that we are wrong. You have no proof you are right and we have no proof that you are wrong so everyone needs to shut the **** up, get on the floor and walk the dinosaur

Personally, I've looked into a few of the more widely-practiced religions just to get a good feel on what they believe, their traditions, etc for myself, so I do know a decent amount of information on certain religions.

I don't feel like this is an uncommon thing, although there are certainly atheists who say "deity is stupid" without any looking into it, just as there are religious people who say "my deity/deities of choice exist" without any thought as well. Simply put, they've chosen not to be ignorant when making their choice in believing in a deity or not.

Why do they care? It's obviously not because of something as altruistic as wanting to advance the knowledge of the human race. If it was, they wouldn't be constantly insulting and belittling religious people. That just proves to those people that they're right because the people who disagree with them act like jerks.

I have written close to 200 published works why do atheist not read them when they want to attack the Catholic Church? I have found many answers the Church does no wrong it the is ignorance of the the people.

I would like to know when the Church denounced science because from my understanding science was backed by the Church in the West during the Medieval Ages which gave rise to the Renaissance age which the Church had back that up too, It is not until the 1940's when the Church started putting its foot down on Science because of some of the products being acquired through it. We can blame that on the philosophies of the time which truly contradicted Church teachings because in the 18th and 19th century all the big philosophers had these "original ideas" and refused to look back to the Greeks and Romans. Again as I said in the original post the Church is pro-science but there are individuals out there who were/are/will be against it.

In my post I was writing as if Thomas Aquinas had seen this and what he would have said. In his opening statements of the Summa Theologica he speaks very highly of science and what it has done for society and still to this day St. Thomas is one of the more influential Catholics and some Protestants read to find answers

Evolution is not a fact but a theory.
Theory; a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

We argued for too long, I can't answer your last post because of all the purples.
"But if there is not evolution that means we were created so that proves he exists so it's not a problem."
That's called "the argument from ignorance" aka "I don't know what else could've done it, so there is no other way."
You have to prove God's existence, no matter whether the theory of evolution is true or not. That's what I meant with "they don't understand the nature of evidence"
Disproving God wouldn't confirm evolution either.
I mean, did you seriously think it goes like this
"We have fossil record of various different stages of animals and observed evolution, that could explain how they lead to one another and the beings today, but we can't possibly proof that, so we are just gonna take one of 1870 mystical entities that has been talked about in the history of humanity and say that did it, even though we can't proof that either."
are you even aware of how silly that sounds?

Evolution, the change in the gene over the passing of generation is an observed fact.
The theorie of evolution, that explains how species came to be, is a theory, yes.
But it's the single best explanation, that only one that has made predictions that came true and hasn't been proven wrong since.

Actually Micro-evolution is just the change of dominant and recessive traits in the DNA of cells( also known as genetic variance) but it is not macro evolution which is the changing from one species to another .

Makroevolution is only what microevolution can do over time. There is no difference other than that. Concratulations for falling for that common creationist argument.
Oh and btw, those two are of course part of the theorie of evolution...

Yes, the first half, and it's exactly the ******** that I expected.
I am not gonna waste my time pointing it out; seriously, if you want to believe that, please do so. I am tired and sick of those people who can't present their cases and that's it.
Why isn't there a single creationism site, that can proof their case without mentioning evolution? It works the other way around, you know -_-...

Watched the first part. Could barely hold back my laughter.
"If evolution is true, there should be observable evidence to support these transitions."
Of course he is bringing up "transitional forms" as problem... because if there aren't fossil records of the evolution of EVERY SINGLE species, evolution sure must be false.
How I love those creationist claims, they always go like this
"Oh, you can only prove 90% of your points? How sweet, I have a magical entity in the sky that can do 100% of what I claim. Clearly my point is better."
Pathetic.

No, it's no problem compared to proving an allmighty allpowerful being exists.
This guy seemingly thinks it takes the same amount of "faith" (lol).
Nah, don't wanna waste my time.
Is there anything serious to expect? Or just another 50minutes of the same fallacies?